COMES NOW the defendant, Douglas Davis, through counsel, and moves to suppress evidence of possession of a controlled substance that resulted from a search in violation of the defendant’s Fourth Amendment right to privacy from unreasonable search and seizures.
II. ARGUMENT
1. Whether Officer Ortiz had probable cause or reasonable suspicion to detain Mr. Davis for occupying a private space under the Olympia Municipal Code and if the detention violated the defendant’s rights against interference under Article I, Section 7 of Washington State Constitution.
The officer cited the Olympia Municipal Code 9.16.180 as the reason for initially detaining the defendant, however, code states that, “No person shall be cited under this subsection unless
…show more content…
However, we do not believe the reasonableness of Sandoval's expectation of privacy turns on whether he had permission to camp on public land. Such a distinction would mean that a camper who overstayed his permit in a public campground would lose his Fourth Amendment rights, while his neighbor, whose permit had not expired, would retain those rights.
The issue of whether a right to privacy is contingent on one’s lawful presence on a premises under the less broad protection of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution was addressed by the United States Supreme Court in Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978), which stated, “The phrase “legitimately on premises” creates "too broad a gauge" for measurement of Fourth Amendment rights.” Any search of a tent, particularly someone who relies on it as a residence, should be held to the same standard as a traditional dwelling when contemplating warrantless searches regardless of whether they had permission from the property holder to erect it. In this case the officer had no warrant or probable cause to warrant a search of the defendant’s
The issue that this case raises, is whether or not the officers had the right to search the car of a person who they just arrested, while the person is handcuffed and placed in the back of a squad car?
As a result of the suspect, P.C Spicer asked the defendant for a piece of identification, and Mr.Nanokeesic responded the identification was in his backpack and P.C Spicer told him to get it. Nevertheless, the other office P.C Bannon formed intention to search his backpack during the unlawful detention. The police said “perhaps I need to look for you.” At this point he reached out for the strap of Mr.Nanokeesic’s backpack. In R.v.Mohamd, the court held that the Officer must subjectively believe that person is committing or has committed an indictable offence and their belief is based on objectively reasonable grounds. There was no evidence of Mr.Nanokeesic was committing an indictable offence. Also, the detention of Mr.Nanokeesic was unreasonable and unlawful. In short, the police did not have any lawful basis to conduct a
Justice Harlan’s reasonable expectations test in Katz vs. United States (1967) considers whether a person has an “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy” and if so, whether such expectation is one that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’” (Solove and Schwartz 99) If there is no expectation of privacy, there is no search and no seizure (reasonable, or not), and hence no Fourth Amendment issue. Likewise, we must first ascertain whether a search took place. A few questions from a police officer, a frisk, or the taking of blood samples do not constitute a search. (Solove and Schwartz 83; 86) Likewise, the plain view doctrine establishes that objects knowingly exhibited in a public area, in plain view for police to see, do not
There are records of many cases that has created controversies over reasonable or unreasonable searches and seizures. As stated in the fourth amendment,
The U.S Constitution came up with exclusive amendments in order to promote rights for its citizens. One of them is the Fourth amendment. The Fourth Amendment highlights the right of people to be secure in their persons, houses, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searches, and persons or things to be seized (Worral, 2012). In other words such amendment gave significance to two legal concepts the prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures and the obligation to provide probable cause to issue a warrant. This leads to the introduction of the landmark Supreme Court case Mapp v. Ohio and the connection to a fact pattern (similar case). Both cases will be analyzed showing the importance of facts and arguments regarding the exclusionary rule and the poisonous doctrine.
This decision requires that unless a suspect in custody has been informed of his constitutional rights before questioning anything he says may not be introduced in a court of law.
Privacy comes at a cost. It brings people who fight for the people the privacy of others when it is violated together. Cops not being able to search when they seize a cell phone makes them risk their lives because how people these days are, there could be bombs in the phone. Even though this amendment was ratified, people to this day still don’t have privacy they rightfully deserve. This effects me because I’m able to keep special information to myself. Also, if a police pulls over a family member and ask for their phone to investigate without giving a proper reason or having a warrant, that family member could say no. If a police hasn’t given you a good reason to hand something over, you have the right to resist or else the police are being unconstitutional. This amendment gives people the safety to do what they want(that’s legal). It also makes life better, but harder. Life is harder with this amendment because you have to watch out for who you trust that they won’t do anything to jeopardize your safety. This is relevant because a man in Indiana was tracked down by a GPS. It didn’t violate his 4th Amendment because the police got a warrant to put a tracking device in his mom’s car. This case represents how technology gives advantages and disadvantages. An advantage was that they were able to track him down for a burglary. The disadvantage would be that if they hadn’t gotten a warrant, he could have filed a lawsuit against
The Fourth Amendment to the Constitution states that people have the right “to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,” but the issue at hand here is whether this also applies to the searches of open fields and of objects in plain view and whether the fourth amendment provides protection over these as well. In order to reaffirm the courts’ decision on this matter I will be relating their decisions in the cases of Oliver v. United States (1984), and California v. Greenwood (1988) which deal directly with the question of whether a person can have reasonable expectations of privacy as provided for in the fourth amendment with regards to objects in an open field or in plain view.
The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. A warrant, a legal paper authorizing a search, cannot be issued unless there is a reasonable cause. Courts have rules that a warrant is not required in every case. In emergencies such as hot pursuit, public safety, danger of loss of evidence, and permission of the suspect, police officers do not need a warrant to search a person’s property (Background Essay). In the case of DLK, federal agents believed DLK was growing marijuana in his home. Artificial heat intensive lights are used to grow the marijuana indoors (Doc B). Agents scanned DLK’s home with a thermal imager. Based on the scan and other information, a judge issued
Three police officers were looking for a bombing suspect at Miss Mapp’s residence they asked her if they could search her house she refused to allow them. Miss Mapp said that they would need a search to enter her house so they left to go retrieve one. The three police officers returned three hours later with a paper that they said was a search warrant and forced their way into her house. During the search they found obscene materials that they could use to arrest her for having in her home. The items were found in the basement during an illegal search and seizure conducted in violation of the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution and therefore should not admissible in court.
Under the California Penal Code, officers are granted permission to search Johnson under the conditions of his probation. While acting upon this, they discovered multiple areas of the house in which controlled substances were hidden. Officers argued that by searching Johnson without a warrant, they prevented the potential destruction of evidence.
against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
The amendment involved in this case was the Fourth Amendment due to the protection of unreasonable search
In September 25, 1789, the First Amendment protects people’s privacy of beliefs without government intrusion. The Fourth Amendment protects one’s person and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. On February 1, 1886 in Boyd v. U.S. Supreme Court recognized the protection of privacy interests under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In the 1890s, the legal concept of pri...
In September 25, 1789, the First Amendment protects people’s privacy of beliefs without government intrusion. The Fourth Amendment protects one’s person and possessions from unreasonable searches and seizures. On February 1, 1886 in Boyd v. U.S. Supreme Court recognized the protection of privacy interests under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In the 1890s, the legal concept of pr...